In this article, Kos attempts to describe why he thinks there is a more natural alliance between those with libertarian principles, and the Democratic party; as well as why the Republican party has been losing so much of it’s traditionally libertarian center…

…and but for two important points, I’m agreeing with what he’s written (which by the way isn’t what I think he truly believes. I’ve read enough of his stuff over the years that I know he’s way more to the left than he’s presenting himself here).

The first principle that I utterly disagree with, is that corporations are the ultimate evil in this world; and that capitalism must be strictly regulated and monitored by government or it will inevitably become a totalitarian evil.

The funny thing about that one is; it’s not too far wrong. Oh it is completely wrong in reality; but the difference between reality, and this socialists paranoid dystopian fantasy future isn’t very large. Mercantilist fascism is a distinct posibility if certain elements get tweakend in certain ways.

The irony of this principle, is that this result is exactly what we KNOW to be true, and will ALWAYS happen with an unfettered government; which brings us to the second issue I have…

The second principle he espouses here that I completely disagree with, is the core philosophy which separates Liberals, Democrats, Libertarians, libertarians, Republicans, and Conservatives alike.

Those on the left and the right (presuming a continuous linear spectrum as presented above) both believe that government can to some degree or another, do good; and be a legitmate and positive force; either for change, or to maintain stasis.

Those who are Libertarians, or libertarians; in general believe that all government is inherently a negative thing, but that some government is less negative than the alternative.

This principle was once the guide of the centrists wings of both the Democratic, and Republican parties; however those wings are severely weakened (in the case of the republicans), or have simply been purged from the party over the past 40 years (the democrats).

This means that there is no longer a functioning constiuency for severely limited government in power today. Both major parties are operating under the principle that with THEIR guidance, government can and WILL do good (or what THEY consider to be good – which is nothing of the sort), no matter the consequences.

One thing that these types never seem to understand, is the law of unintended consequences, and it most important corolary, the corolary of intentions.

ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS:

No matter what you do, what you know, or what your intentions are; every word you say, every thing you do, will have consequences you did not intend, forsee, or understand. Good intentions matter, but good results matter more.

Oh, and I suppose there’s one other principle that Kos is espousing that I can’t take: The idea that the way to fix the country is by voting democratic; and that if enough libertarians come to the democratic party, things will be alright again (or it’s corrolary, that tactically voting against republicans will force them to become more libertarian as a reaction to their electoral losses).

I reject this concept as utter folly; and dangerous folly at that. If the democratic party is ever allowed into the kind of power position it had in the late 70s again; it will destroy America utterly, and possibly kill us all in the process.

No, I’m not being hyperbolic, I am simply doing that which is prudent: the consequences of following what democrats say are, or have proven to be, their policies; will be the utter subjugation of the west to political correctness, weakness, appeasment, “tolerance”, and “multiculturalism”; and that WILL get us all killed.

The Democratic party, and the left who have chosen the Democrats as their represntatives; are in fact not liberty oriented at all (though some individuals may be). They are controlled by totalitarian transnational “progressivists”.

If these political philosophies are given reign over the country, it will weaken us to the point where we would be unable to resist the muslim and communist assault on our society, and we would all be killed or converted.

This is not to say the Republicans are all that much better; but I do not fear for my immediate safety, or the safety of my children given Republican principles and track record. Yes, taken too far, we COULD become that totalitarian mercantilist fascist state that frothy leftists have paranoid wet dreams about… but I for one would rise in bloody revolution first, as I know would at least hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens; and we’ve all got plenty of guns.

Of course we wouldn’t if the transnational progressivists had their way, now would we.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Like this:

LikeLoading...

http://nomayo.mu.nu Stephen Macklin

Libertarianism to me is best summed up by Thomas Paine “That government is best which governs least.”

That can hardly describe the Democratic party – an d increasingly cannot describe the GOP either.

http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com VRB

Hundreds of thousands to millions there? You may be a minority. People usally get the government they want in a society like ours. When it comes to having bread the society will tolerate a lot. Only so many ‘individuals” will go down.

Richard Fields

While the Monica follies provided distraction we did have a centrist Democratic government with Clinton. And more to the point a divided government. Which was good because the Democrats checked the worst instincts of the GOP and vice versa. Very little bad got done. And a few good things, like welfare reform, did get done. The budget got balanced (albeit using bogus government cash accounting principles which would get a corporate CEO prison time). Giving all the power to the GOP has brought us war, bigger deficits, more welfare (the medicare drug benefit), more intrusions upon our privacy (the Patriot Act), and a spending spree that makes LBJ look like a tight fisted Scotsman. The only Republican who will get my vote this November is Tom McClintock for Lieutenant Governor. Elsewhere on the ballot I’m voting Libertarian or Democratic if the LP doesn’t have a candidate.

BurtB

Richard Fields is incorrect.

“Giving all the power to the GOP has brought us war”

No, the Terrorists brought us War.

And Saddam and his 17 UN violations was just the next logical place to take the war in our effort to deny the Terrorists places where they have free rein.

If we do not finish up and go after Iran, there will be Nukes in New York by 2020

http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com VRB

BurtB,
I don’t see your logic when you say Iraq was the next logical place. If we thougt WMD’s were going to be sougth out, why would you look for incomplete technolgy when there were better places to get. With the money Bin Laden had, don’t you think he could have bougth some of the same scientist Iran has. As for UN violations, it had already passed the time to do anything about them. And how many other places have UN violations. I don’t think we should have made friends with Pakistan until we had had caught Bin Laden. I think his capture would have stopped more of the terrorism than this war. His mystique would have disappeared and he could no longer been viewed as near godlike leader. We should have lusted for revenge, and scorched the earth in Afghanistan. I think it would also be best if we stopped trying fight as if morally superior, we should fight to strike terror in them.

http://www.atlasblogged.com Wulf

I don’t see your logic when you say Iraq was the next logical place.

What Republicans mean when they say that as follows;
1) Iraq’s continued flouting of the UN was frustrating and embarassing, and it encouraged the rest of the world to expect that kind of treatment in a similar situation. It encouraged terrorists to think they could handle the consequences of standing up to the USA and the UN.
2) Saddam was a soft target compared to the regimes in Iran and North Korea.
3) It is possible to draw anti-American Islamic fighters from Morocco to Malaysia to come fight our troops in Iraq instead of planning attacks against US civilians in the US itself.

VRB, you sound like a fool. Advocating a scorched-earth policy in Afghanistan and hinting at invasions of Pakistan is hardly the foreign policy that would have served us best. Let me take a wild guess… you ever throw the word “dhimmi” around?

http://hathor-sekhmet.blogspot.com VRB

From what I have looked up, ( didn’t know what dhimmi meant) I don’t see how it applies.
Anyone can call someone a fool when they don’t agree, So what’s the big deal. You act as if I really was making policy. This is just my opinion and I don’t believe there are any politicians left or right who think like I do. And how do you know how that policy would have served us. It might have scared the living sh*t out of the terrorist. Let them know they have no place to hide. If you thought that Iraq was making any difference, then how come North Korea is flaunting its bomb. For a good price you don’t think they would not be willing to sell to terrorist? Kim Jong Il seems crazy enough to just give it away.